Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 56:

In page 68, line 21, to delete “3A. A person” and substitute “3A. (1) A person”.

I will deal with the amendment first and then make some more general points on the section. These amendments relate to an issue that was discussed at both the committee briefing and in the Chamber on Second Stage, namely, the changes that are required to the non-refoulementconsideration.

That followed on from a case in 2018 that required a more formal provision to be put into the legislation and a statement that all deportations since December 2016 had been subject to a non-refoulement consideration.

In many jurisdictions the courts with international human rights mechanisms have given a much more expansive interpretation of what should be involved in the prohibition on refoulement than has been considered in this Bill or legislation to date here. Other jurisdictions, for example, have required considerations of other serious human rights violations such as in the following: the flagrant denial to a fair trial, as in the European Court of Human Rights case of Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom; serious forms of sexual and gender-based violence such as in the Convention Against Torture, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, 2010; the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women general recommendation No. 32, paragraph 23; and female genital mutilation as provided for by the Human Rights Committee in Kaba v. Canada, 2010, and as recognised in the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, general recommendation No. 32. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights noted that heightened consideration must be given to children in the context of non-refoulement, whereby actions of the state must be taken in accordance with the best interests of the child. The commission states: “In particular, a child should not be returned if such return would result in the violation of their fundamental human rights, including if there is a risk of insufficient provision of food or health services."

Incorporating this provision into this section of the Bill would make the legislation more human rights compliant. It would not act as a prevention to deportations but it could be a further set of considerations of potential very serious breaches of a person's human rights before his or her deportation. That is the purpose of this set of amendments and the reason we have tabled them. It is a very reasonable ask. I refer to potentially very serious human rights breaches that the State should take into serious consideration before it deports anyone. It is correct that heightened consideration should be given to children in this context.

Sinn Féin had tabled amendments Nos. 53 to 56, inclusive, in this section 88. These amendments related to the legislative uncertainty that cannot be solved only in this House but which can be partially solved here around the citizenship rights of those who are born on this island but are resident in the Six Counties in the North. There is a lack of legislative clarity in this regard. On Second Stage I quoted Mr. Gormally from the Committee on the Administration of Justice:

Legislation is needed both in the UK and Ireland to recognise the particular status of Irish citizens born in Northern Ireland and their unequivocal right to participate fully in that region and as fully as feasible in Irish society and full equality in the rights the two categories can access. A treaty enshrining these provisions in international law would repair the damage done to the principle of the Agreement.

This issue has been well flagged and the Government should reflect on it and should have considered amendments in this regard. I hope the Government will consider quite seriously some of the amendments we have put forward. It is a clear view, shared by many academics, that a change is needed not only in British legislation but also in Irish legislation.

The Sinn Féin amendments would have amended section 62 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act to guarantee full citizenship rights for those who fall under that section, the citizens to whom we refer. There would also be a need for a review to make recommendations as the legislative changes that are required to give full and equal citizenship for the Irish citizens in the North. There are issues around naturalisation and seeking visas, for example when people are related to or a spouse of an Irish citizen but are not themselves an Irish citizen, where that Irish citizen is resident in the North. When a partner who lives in another jurisdiction wants to come to Ireland and a visa is sought for him or her, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will not give that visa. The Department will send the person to the British system. This needs to be rectified. These are rights that Irish citizens should enjoy wherever they reside.

At the heart of this debate in recent weeks we have had most notable contributions on this. For some time we have seen all stripes of political opinion doing their best to show their interest in this and a desire to be open to and take into consideration the rights of citizens in the North. We see Fine Gael looking to run Mark Durkan in the EU. We see Fianna Fáil and its partnership with the SDLP. We see increased commentary from the Labour Party on politics in the North. This is all absolutely welcome.

See this speech in context